In 2026, Multimodal Biometrics STILL Isn’t the Leading Modality

So the Biometrics Institute released its 2026 industry survey, and we non-Institute members can download an executive summary of the report.

So I did.

(I talked about a previous survey here.)

I will take the liberty of reproducing one small portion of the executive summary:

“While face at 45% continues to be the biometric expected to lead growth over the next few years, combining to or more different biometric modalities has nearly doubled from 11% last year to 21% this year. Furthermore, when asked which modality is expected to increase significantly over the next few years, multimodal leads the wider field at 40%, up from 29% last year, as combinations become the practical answer to evolving threats.”

My question: why isn’t everyone using multimodal (and, for that matter, multifactor) TODAY?

The answer is that it’s so danged easy (i.e. frictionless) just to take a selfie and be done with it.

But is the use of a single modality wise? Perhaps in non-critical applications, but the critical ones had better rely on more than one modality or factor for authentication, and definitely for identity verification.

When You Don’t Use Voter ID, Don’t Use Signatures

I’ve previously commented that the precinct workers in voter ID states have neither the knowledge nor the equipment to tell a fake voter ID from a real one.

But what if you rely on things other than voter ID to determine identity?

This goodie came from a thread from cherielynn89.

“My vote didn’t count against prop 50 because my signature didn’t match ? I voted in person !! With ID that no one asked for !! Make it make sense !! I’m sure I’m not the only vote they didn’t count !!”

So my state of California, which does not require voter ID, uses signature verification. If you view cherielynn69’s original thread, you will see a letter from the Butte County Clerk-Recorder stating “signature does not match.”

I’d like to know who made that determination, and what training they had.

As it turns out, I have never discussed signatures as a biometric in detail. But the Biometrics Institute has, distinguishing between static and dynamic signatures. You obtain more information with the latter:

“The physical actions involved in writing a signature are captured, usually on a screen sensitive device like a tablet, and recorded electronically. Consequently different characteristics are used rather than just those found in the image of the signature. This involves a three dimensional (X, Y & Z axes) evaluation of the time taken, rhythm and varying velocities of forming each letter and the overall signature, pen/stylus pressure and the direction of the strokes, including free strokes, for example crossing a ‘T’ or dotting an ‘I’.”

Which is nice…except that when comparing the signature on a mail-in ballot to the signature on a voter roll, only static signature comparison is available.

And static signatures are not all that accurate.

In 1971, publisher McGraw-Hill scored the rights to Howard Hughes’ life story, accompanied by a letter from Howard Hughes affirming that he had authorized writer Clifford Irving to act on Hughes’ behalf. Experts from McGraw-Hill examined the letter and concluded that Hughes could have written it…until those troublesome postal inspectors noticed something. While the writing in the Hughes letter differed from Irving’s own writing, the two shared telltale similarities.

Because while it’s hard to change your face, and very hard to change your finger, it’s much easier to change your signature. But not easy enough, as the postal inspectors showed.

So I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t rely on signatures as proof of identity.

Battling deepfakes with…IAL3?

(Picture designed by Freepik.)

The information in this post is taken from the summary of this year’s Biometrics Institute Industry Survey and is presented under the following authority:

“You are welcome to use the information from this survey with a reference to its source, Biometrics Institute Industry Survey 2025. The full report, slides and graphics are available to Biometrics Institute members.”

But even the freebie stuff is valuable, including this citation of two concerns expressed by survey respondents:

“Against a backdrop of ongoing concerns around deepfakes, 85%
agreed or agreed strongly that deepfake technology poses a
significant threat to the future of biometric recognition, which
was similar to 2024.
“And two thirds of respondents (67%) agreed or agreed strongly
that supervised biometric capture is crucial to safeguard against
spoofing and injection attacks.”

Supervised biometric capture? Where have we heard that before?

IAL3 requires “[p]hysical presence” for identity proofing. However, the proofing agent may “attend the identity proofing session via a CSP-controlled kiosk or device.” In other words, supervised enrollment.

Now remote supervised enrollment and even in-person supervised enrollment is not a 100.00000% guard against deepfakes. The subject could be wearing a REALLY REALLY good mask. But it’s better than unsupervised enrollment.

How does your company battle deepfakes?

How do you tell your clients about your product?

Do you need product marketing assistance? Talk to Bredemarket.